If everything was rationed there would be no poverty. If everybody shared, then all would have the same, but, a few rotten apples would even spoil that. The poor will always be with us...not the financially poor...the spiritually poor. As long as that is so, there will always be a ray of darkness in all of our light.

I've heard that saying before - some sort of standard propaganda that says there is nothing we can do for the poor, the poor will always be with us. We are not talking rationing as if in WW1 - talking about more equality in money - that's totally different than what you said.

and I know that is not true.

I'm poor by USA standards, I'm the bottom 12% - but - I'm still the top 12% worldwide.Hypothetically speaking, say all the money in the US was divided evenly between all the people. Would we be rich? Poor? Middle-class?

Too bad with the national debt that every man, woman and child has a personal debt of $45,000!!!!!!!! And that is why USA is declining because it is the squeezing of the workers that is paying off the debt.

Since an aging population of baby-boomers - Obama was forced to allow young (under 30) illegal aliens to have work permits in order to keep the US afloat for another generation.

I think of poverty as a tsunami in which not everyone can out run.Some will out run this wave, even thrive, while others are too slow and are consumed by the wave.

All people have a personal responsibility for their economic standing, but collectively as a species we are all responsible for the elimination or augmentation of poverty, which goes beyond government responsibility.

For instance, before the housing bubble, the 'tsunami' was smaller or relatively unnoticeable. When the bubble popped, more poverty was created not just by the lost of income for people, but the lost of property and investment itself in this country.

People simply could not out run the wave through no fault of their own.

Most people have allow it to happen, this abuse can be turned around like all other abuses throughout human history. A balance can be worked on between the very rich and the poor, the greatest gap ever, greatest slavery ever, World economics speaking

If I limit myself to poverty in India I am sure it is the result of the greed of the rich employers of India. They neither want to pay taxes honestly nor do they want to pay proper wages. Unless proper wages are paid the majority of the population will remain poor due to low purchasing power in their hands.

Born with those circumstances (like low economic status of family you have, low educational status and minimal opportunities) it is more difficult now to climb the ladder as they say. People are born into family statuses, wealth, but there is capacity for improvement.

As well, many people consider poverty to be a financial problem... however, I believe it's a SOCIAL problem as well. Status and stigma are huge factors in North American situations of poverty but not much attention is given to correcting these issues and poverty is attacked mainly by throwing money at it where I'm at.

If you throw money at someone in need who trickled down into poverty due to, say, mental health issues, the money won't help very much until the person in poverty is treated as a whole and complex person. If a person stays at poverty level in a shelter for more than about 15-60 days (depending on the resiliency of the person) due to these health issues, a person starts to "learn to be homeless" and starts rapidly losing other life skills because common life skills are not being used anymore and a different set of skills is needed at street level. It does NOT TAKE LONG to adopt survival skills and lose healthy life skills - and life skills don't just "bounce back" for most people on the first day they gain stable housing. This part of homelessness/poverty isn't a money problem... this is a social problem and an oppression problem involving restriction of healthy life resources and restrictions of healthy human relations/contact.

I think we need to examine myths and truths surrounding poverty and all get our heads away from the problem as being mainly a financial problem.

In the city I'm living in, 51% of people stuck in shelters are WORKING and do have jobs.

I'm pretty sure this means we need to look deeper into the problem before we judge that poverty is about money or lack of it in my city.

Wealthy people are part of the problem, poor people are part of the problem, government officials, landlords, police officers, storekeepers, media announcers, content producers, you name it - we're all part of the problem if we do not educate ourselves in more than one aspect of the complexities surrounding homelessness and poverty...and if we judge, too quickly, deciding that one or two step solutions will suffice for people living in situations of poverty.

Actually, we could not blame on anyone that the person is responsible behind poverty. We can say the main reason is behind it that is Lack of Education. The people who are enduring poverty, they don't have idea to overcome this problem. However, they don't have sufficient money to getting high education or good level of education. But education is must to eradicate poverty. And more about Govt. Policy System, Govt. has not made any rule yet to solve out this problem. Even Govt. offers rations where people can get food commodity and other more things at lowest prices.

So we can say that...a well education is only one solution to eradicate poverty.

not only a well-education but good habits: a certain amount of forward planning, thinking and aiming. For example, if you don't go to bed early you can't get up early. If you can't get up early the day is shot. Most employers want you there by nine. If that is impossible, you might be able to find work which starts in the afternoon. Even here, you have to plan ahead to make sure you go to bed before morning to get to get enough sleep by the afternoon. Sleep is everything in life! If you can't regulate your biorhythms and take control of your body, then I don't know what to tell you. Alcohol and drugs also makes it much harder to master your own body. You have to get enough nutrition and eat the right foods. You really have to be able to have self-mastery.

For instance, Jennifer Anniston, the movie star, is doing current movies and keeping herself in really good shape for her age. How does she do it? She woks at it. Maybe she has a trainer and her own swimming pool, but she does not sit in front of a TV all day and she probably has many flat screens around the mansion. She could eat ice cream and bonbons, but she doesn't. She inspires herself to eat balanced meals and she makes sure not to over-eat. Self-discipline/motivation is what it takes. She easily could have become a has-been after her long run in Friends. But she chose not to and maintains her health, looks and skills to this day. She has strong intentions. She visualizes success, wealth and health. And enjoys the challenges her intentions bring her. I would surmise.

Yes of course, I am agree with your answer that we should get up early in the morning and seize the day. But what are those endeavours that we should focus on and would really helpful to eradicate the poverty? Just asking...

As long as the military intelligence and war budget is 10 times greater than the education budget and expanding under Trump's iron fist, along with the media controlling our minds. America education system will continue being run like a sewing machine factory and teach what to think rather than how to think for ourselves.

I am waiting for America to blow themselves up so we all can rebuild the entire planet together without Trump's natural environment experience.

Nobody will get me a + for this, I don't need lip service for approval for what is always already in action from my heart and soul.

Most experts will point to lack of education as the root cause of poverty. No one person or entity can be name responsible. There are too many examples of people who should have remained in poverty climb out while others who should be well off fall into poverty.

Everyone sharing sounds and is a wonderful idea, it just doesn't work. Most humans are born with an inate sense of desired achievement. I stands out strongest in children "I can do it myself". Somewhere along the line we lose that sense due to outside sources. If someone tells you enough times you can't do something, soo, you begin to believe them.

Thomas Jefferson believe that social communism (though he didn't call it that) was the most perfect form of government for a society. He also wrote there was only one inherent problem. In order for it to work there had to be one supreme individual in command to make all decision as to equality and that man had only existed once on earth. Jesus. The next, best thing was a democratic republic.

I agree with both answers above on this question. Lack of education does keep many people from advancing due to qualifications and limited knowledge. However, some have made it without the proper education to great heights. I think that many people are born to be leaders, some teachers, doctors, etc. But, I think the drive to succeed and achieve has to be there as well. I do believe that we can be happy in whatever state we are in as long as we have a strong faith to balance us.

Some people actually work 2 jobs and work 60 hours a week and are still poor. Partly due to minimum wage jobs with no benefits. When you are born poor it is not easy to get over that hurdle. Yes, some do it...but many more don't make it.

Equal access is a requirement. Equal access to resources, such as education for one. Access to state help if necessary if poor.

It's not meant for people to live off of the state help. It was never intended for that purpose.No one is saying anything about you. You can do whatever it is you want to do within reason to obtain whatever goals you set. There are people out there that set no goals. They have no motivation.

In what way can we differentiate governments from systems? Without governments systems would remain ideologies. It is obvious to me that poverty comes from the systems applied by governments. It is no news that neither communism nor capitalism reduced the differential between the poor and the wealthy, but it is common knowledge that capitalism triggered poverty. I doubt that real communism was ever applied verbatim. Intelligence and right opportunities seemed to me the factors that propelled poverty. Personal enrichment as a result generated greed and exploitation of men. The growth of capital on one side, the increase of dependency on the other side were the right ingredients to keep the model as a recipe to maintain the disparities.

i run into this question at work sometimes....i work with low income families...but my question is what does that actually mean? a family with very little resources and can't make ends meet; a family with assets and can't make ends meet; homeless families, etc. etc.

and then, when i look outside of NA - poverty can look completely different ....no water, no health care, no social system, no access to education, etc etc

For instance, a family of 3 would be considered in poverty if they made less than $19,000 in a year. But, when the government calculates the rate, they don't take into account the value of food stamps, housing assistance, or the earned income tax credit, just to name a few.

So, let's say a family of 3 in Arizona makes $16,000, which is slightly over minimum wage. They are counted as living in poverty.

However, this family will get $4,000 back on their tax return because of the earned income tax credit. This brings their income to $20,000 for the year. So just from their taxes, this family is counted as living in poverty, although they don't, by definition, live in poverty.

Secondly, this family is eligible to receive approximately $380/month in food stamp benefits. That is $4560 worth of food for a year. That brings total income up to $24,560, or 30% more than the poverty line, but this family is still counted as living in poverty.

But then again, there are expenses not counted that would bring down that income,like the costs of housing, the cost of transportation, the of looking for a job, out of pocket healthcare.

There are others costs, sometimes economic and societal circumstances forces a family to move frequently, it is my belief that a family does better if they can maintain a household at one location for a period long enough to raise the kids to the point where the kids can get out on their own. And if we are talking college there is the cost of education.

When list reason why 'poverty' isn't necessarily 'poverty' it should be more balanced and realistic.

All those costs are factored into the poverty line already. That's what makes the line what it is. The government says 'How much money does 1 person have to make to be able to reasonably provide basic necessities'.

My point is that a family of 3 that makes up to 7,000-8,000 less than the poverty line actually makes more than the poverty line.

No, they aren't the same from state to state. Each state has its own poverty line, I was simply using the US average.

From country to country is irrelevant to my point, as my point was about the US, and my point stands. For any given poverty line in any given area, there are a large number of people who are counted as being under the poverty line even though they make more than the poverty line.

"Noncash benefits (such as food stamps and housing subsidies) do not count."

So somebody who can't afford food is counted as living in poverty. If the government gives them money for food though, they are still counted as not having money for food.

"Before taxes"

This included refundable tax credits, like the earned income credit. If you make less than X dollars, but EIC puts you above X dollars, the government still says you make less than X dollars.

So for my example, a family of 3 that makes 16,000 would be in poverty since they are under the poverty line of 19,000. However, they get $4,000 per year from EIC and over $4,000 per year(if they want) from food stamps.

So really, you have a family of 3 that makes 24,000 that is counted as if they make under 19,000.

The bottom 50% pay less than 2%(and that doesn't include Earned Income Credit or Additional Child Tax Credit, both of which are refundable credits, meaning that many Americans pay a negative tax rate).

The top 1% pay 24%.

So, it's not 'fair' for the top 1% to pay a rate that is over 12 times higher than that of the bottom 50%?

Did I say all millionaires pay 24%? I said the top 1% pays 24%. Yes, there are some that pay more and some that pay less, but that's the average.

17% is still more than the bottom 99% pay on average. Warren Buffet's secretary doesn't pay 28% either, unless she is purposefully not claiming deductions and exemptions, and even then the IRS usually corrects those errors automatically.

Right, but they don't pay taxes, so how is it unfair that they pay nothing and the rich pay 24%?Yeah, kinda. I've already addressed this.

In 2009 it was 1.85%.

No, that's a complete lie. The middle class, making between 32,000 and 66,000 pay 12-15%.

Worst case scenario, a Single person making 66,000 would owe 10,250 in taxes, or 15.5%. A married couple making 66,000 would owe 6,200, or 9.3%. Give them one dependent and they owe 4,645, or 7%. All of those calculations are with standard deductions... no extra deductions, exemptions, or credits.

You show me unbiased facts and I'll care. But, you show me something which the government has had it's hands on, then you're extremely funny.I'm sure you can justify them by pointing to other government doled out BS.Really? And how many people cheat on their taxes and don't get caught? Hmm....Facts are not a Truth. You speak of NO truth. You just keep pounding away at the government given statistics as if they are supposedly relevant to the conversation, but in reality what the government gives to the public is nothing more than half facts.

So please....go blow smoke up someone else you know what.

If you trust the government for giving you facts, then you're part of the problem and not part of the solution.

Trusting the IRS is no different than one Trusting the FDA to provide accurate information. Why are you asking me? I asked you to provide unbiased facts about the subject matter. The problem is you cannot. I know this, but apparently you didn't.

Right, you are basically saying that all primary sources are off limits. You aren't allowing arguments you disagree with, while dismissing sources, and providing none of your own.

I can, however, demonstrate my point without relying on any government studies. I've offered to do it, do you want to see the truth? I can show you tax rates for single, married, and married with 1 dependent families at each bracket. Do you want to see that?

I said anything the government has a hand on or in. If you have sources which the government hasn't touched(and you prove they haven't touched the sources, like signed declarations government hasn't), then by all means.As I already said, no numbers coming from government can believed, when 20% of Americans are wealthy(Millionaires), 15% are homeless and 15% live in poverty of some sort.

The above statistics come from doing in-depth research on the homeless issue in America, why poverty exists(and how it started in America) and it was done without the need for government assistance or statistics.I'm sure you could.Throwing around the word "Truth" when dealing with facts? Is ridiculous.I'm sure you could. But, how does that answer the "poverty" question? It wouldn't.

Ok, provide your sources. I want to know how you found out that 20% of Americans are millionaires, and how 15% are homeless, and how 15% live in poverty(funny that you use the same number that the government provides).

You took issue with the tax rates I provided. You said my information on tax rates that people pay are worthless. Do you care to see the facts?

We can do the facts thing, but you've already dismissed, with no reason whatsoever, my first example of a hypothetical case study showing tax rates for different income levels.

You are the one who took issue with my claims about tax rates. The poor/middle class's 'high' tax rates are not the reason for poverty. Their tax rates are lower than the rich, by far. That is my point. You took issue with it, you deal with it.

You dismissed my figures(called them BS). You dismissed my sources(provided none of your own). What are you going to do now?

Funny thing is, the real compensation of employees in all groups has risen since the 70's. We do, however, have a much larger proliferation of personal debt, and that is the individual's fault. We have the mindset in America that, for some reason, you can't live without debt. It's just not true.

I don't care if a CEO makes 300 times more than the average person. Good for him. I don't want to live in a country where the government limits opportunity, and that's not what America stands for.

About playing hide and seek, some try it, but consider this. The IRS wants its money. They do everything they can to get their money. Most people that try to cheat get caught.

They are already taxed 14 times more than the poor. I say that is more than enough.

It's the rich people who are footing the bill for millions of Americans that get thousands of dollars back on their returns from EIC every year. I'm grateful for them paying as much as they do, you shouldn't demonize them for 'only' paying 14 times more.

The 14 times more means nothing to me; like I said before, I'm no economist so I wouldn't know how that compares out relatively. But it doesn't seem to be enough, as many of the poor still do not have the means to even own a home or feed their families while some of the rich flaunt their wealth and surplus. I do not mean to demonize the rich; I know that many have worked hard for their well-deserved place in life. But with compassion, I think not many of the ultra-wealthy would really be opposed to giving more to society. I dislike having the government force it, but the government is meant to be the will of the people, though that right know only seems to be an ideal. If there's anything unclear about my post, I'm happy to clarify.

It means that, while poor people pay, on average, $0.0185 per dollar they earn in taxes, the rich pay $0.24 per dollar they earn on taxes. 14 times more per dollar.

I don't think it is American to say the government should take from the rich and give to the poor.

If wealthy people want to donate, they can, and they do. Romney donated, what, $7 million to charity over the last two years. Yeah, he has a lot more, but I don't think anyone should demonize him for 'only' donating $3.5 million a year.

The government is meant to express the will of the people, and I hope society has evolved to the point where the people give of their own free will. I know that many individuals have, including Romney. The government is not meant to really be a separate entity going "Big Brother'. I think we're agreed there.

But I believe the goal should be a collective reform in the direction of making society more fair, which is better for everyone for a variety of reasons. We all want to make society more fair. I think the question between the left and right on this topic is whether to lean to the side of majority over minority and more rapidly reform the system, or to wait for the cultural development for the people to realize altruism and naturally give on their own. I'm still thinking through it

Agreed, mostly. I am a solid libertarian and capitalist, but I don't disagree with taxes. The best way to improve society isn't anarchy, but a balance between creating a structure that allows individuals to contribute as much as possible while fighting back Big-Brother-knows-best mentality of the gov and of indvls.

I would lean to the side of too far right rather than too far left. It's a great deal easier to reform greed and selfishness with the help of human nature rather than stop the next Hitler, Stalin, or Mao. I don't know the protocol for posting links in forums but I wrote a hub called "Why capitalism works and socialism doesn't" that addresses that. Here it is: http://bobzermop.hubpages.com/hub/Why-c … ism-doesnt

Yes, the American Dream is fully intact. Upward mobility in America is extremely high. More than half of Americans in the bottom 3 quintiles will move up a quintile over the course of a decade. I call that the American dream, if you can increase your income by $18,000-$20,000+ in a decade, I say that's progress.

Funny thing too. The bottom quintile has an median number of income earners of 0. The next two quintiles have a median number of income earners of 1. The top two quintiles have a median number of income earners of 2. A lot of people work hard for their money, and they get rewarded for it.

America still is a great place, but we can always do better. The American Dream is a work in progress. It isn't truly alive until it's available to everyone; not even a majority is good enough. The country and the world have made a great deal of progress, but we do not have a utopia in the USA.

If the socio-economic structure was fair, it would be the individual's fault. The structure is not fair. Once society is reformed to allow anyone a fair chance at climbing the ladder (better education system, better safety net, and others), only then can we start blaming individuals.

Please tell me these people you are talking about who do not have a fair chance. Everyone here has a fair chance. Some choose not to use it. If we place more responsibility on ALL individuals the country will be better off.

Actually, this statement would be incorrect. The Economic structure within America isn't a level playing field and never has been.And would that choice be made if they were slight more educated? or were raised differently?No my dear. It doesn't work that way. Placing responsibility on someone who is unprepared to handle it is stupidity in motion and only causes damage.

You must be aware of what responsibilities are required to live life. Neglecting to do so is what makes one punish themselves for their individual position and causes a skewed perception of whatever understanding they have supposedly concluded.

So you're saying some people are just too stupid to be responsible for their own lives? Who exactly is prepared to take responsibility for their own lives. Our choices are what make us or break us. Not the government.

Government suggests so. Why else would government be in place aside from creating a society of supposedly like-minded people, which isn't the case as it stands and division with others?Actually, every person should be willing to take on all responsibilities of living in this world. How else can they be honest with themselves if they didn't?Government has it's role. It's main job is to keep the completely ignorant on a domestic and foreign level, out of other people's life, so safety/security(living without most fears of threats from others) can be obtained.

Yes, choice are what make us or break us, but until people grow in awareness of their own actions, the method in which they are taken and why, they are not likely to do anything beneficial for themselves or other people. Thus, causing conflict constantly.

Are you able to tell which of your actions are ego driven? and which ones are not?

The willful ignorant are people who purposely choose to be ignorant. They are so set in their ways, through up bringing or traditional ideology, that they remain closed-minded and narrow-minded to their own inability.

These type of people are perfect for telling them what to do and it's exactly how the power and wealthy want to keep it.

So, to fix the average person is to fight against the power and wealthy who rather control than compete.

Just the other day I was showing how a single person can work full-time at minimum wage and put themselves through college, without grants or scholarships or outside help. It just takes hard work.

The final complaint to my example was 'they might just end up with a useless degree from a community college'. People who always complain will always complain. People who don't tend to make things better for themselves.

I'm not sure if you know who the radio guy Dave Ramsey is but he needs to be president. He teaches people to do for themselves no matter what. I think we as a country tend to provide the wrong people with assistance leading to less and less people taking responsibility for their own choices.

Yes, I have tremendous respect for Dave Ramsey. I bought his book and have been living without credit since(and I was in quite a bit of trouble).

The funny thing is, we could very easily have a country with no public debt. Basically, if we bring all expenditures down(slowly, to not bring about another recession) to what they were 5 years ago, we could afford them. We just have expenditures that are too high, and keep growing as fast as revenues. If we just catch up and get a little ahead first, then we can continue growing expenditures at the rate of revenues, and we will consistently have a surplus. Crazy!

Those who are born to homeless families and inner-city children do not have the same potential to have the same jobs as someone born from a wealthy family. I don't think anyone disagrees there. Keep compassion in mind for those born in more difficult circumstances; I am solidly a capitalist, but I recognize the difficulty of justice in a capitalist system. No, I don't think the system is fair. It is not equally easy for everyone to have the same quality of life. To suggest that is ridiculous.

They are still kind of to blame. I posted above the two reasons why, and the proof that they are to blame is that the social ladder isn't working well enough. Based on the state of the economy and the jobs market, it's clear that the American Dream isn't sustainable by individual donations, which you mentioned above. So the debate is still between the left and right ideology and bases.

I love your tactics. Come into a thread, say that something I said is wrong, make your own statement with no source, and when I prove you wrong, just call it all irrelevant anyway and make smilie faces...

$100,000 a year dose not almost seem middle class anymoreIn Vancouver Canada an average house cost 1/2 million dollars add on mortgage and running cost, it's comes to 1 1/2 millions dollars. The Homelessness has tripled every two year and Vancouver promote itself as the best place on earth.

For most people, the house owns you and the bank owns you, your job owns you and the 2% rich owns most of you. That is2% rich has brought and sold the government a long time ago too and owns most people.

I can't be owned, not by God, not by Government(living off grid) not by you or I can't even be own myself. You see, I am fearless, free and that's awesome

Still the facts are most of us in the 70s had no debt and had good saving accounts, after 40 years later, the service those 90% persons of today are either dead or dead broke, how would explain that?

We've been having a really great discussion on tax rates today, and I've been noticing an underlying theme throughout the thread, so I'll just ask the "tough question" directly. This question has three...

How does one blame the media, gangsta rap, horror movies, the Easter bunny, God, the devil, Hunts Ketchup, seemingly everyone, but the killer? Like it or not gangsta rap, the media, horror movies, Hell the Joker, for...

Coming from a very poor background, I have come to realize that most rich people do not give a rats ass about the poor! If in doubt, show me a rich person and you will see someone that has gone to great lengths to...

Do we (Americans) have freedom of speech? If so should Joan Rivers’s apologies for what she said? Can we learn from this and other people who say what they think without considering the consequences while you have the...

So we have freedom of speech in the US, but we also have a crime called "incitement to riot."If you want to commit that crime, what you need to do is get up in front of a group of people, and say some words....